Theodore Adorno was interested in people taking media into their own hands, countering the effects of established, corporate capitalism and re-educating the public through the very engine that feeds the status quo, the mass media. In large part, the rationale behind why right-wing America has resisted acknowledging global warming is that in doing so, they would have to agree that the energy industry has to also change, and that would lead to a loss in profitability. Giant corporations such as the auto industry (closely linked to the energy industry) have also not embraced energy-efficient cars because it would require tremendous capital investment on their part to re-tool their companies. They would suffer a severe loss of profitability (in the short run) for an industry that is already vulnerable, having already lost a large part of its market share to foreign auto makers. No one in corporate America wants (or has any incentive) to spend the capital necessary to retool in order to “save the polar bears from global warming,” so they will attempt to hold off as long as possible. There is still plenty of money to be made without conceding to the demands of the masses or scientific evidence of climate change. NASA is an arm of the government that, with other government agencies, routinely uses the mass media to quell people’s discomfort by suggesting that there really isn’t a problem, at least not one worth worrying about. The media tend to go along with this “false conflict,” without examining its validity. When possible it is better for established institutions to appear ready and able to resolve conflicts and solve problems, particularly ones that are of little concern. This is an example of the tacit collusion between the mass media and the government to never question its authority or expertise unless it is unavoidable.
"The power of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness. While it claims to lead the perplexed, it deludes them with false conflicts which they are to exchange for their own. It solves conflicts for them only in appearance, in a way that they can hardly be solved in their real lives" (Adorno, 1991).
The motivation of mainstream media can never be delinked from corporate advertising since that is what pays for their programming. It is these corporations that are the clients of mass media, not the public.
The “We campaign” represents a form of new media whose client is the public. This group is making a concerted effort to undermine the corporate media monopoly.
In these clips, we see, we hear a message about global warming—that we are in crisis; that we need to solve it together, and we need to do it now as a united force of many rather than a unilateral effort of a few. Stop drawing arbitrary lines in the sand that divide and thwart the process of this endeavor to save our planet—we all live here—act now! Freedom from dependence on fossil fuels is within our sights—demand it! Take it into your own hands, make a difference and do it along side your adversary.
"Although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary…the customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object" (Adorno, 1991)
I believe that Adorno would applaud these attempts, but he also might criticize it since it is merely the bourgeoisie competing with the ruling class and not really empowering the people. In fact, the We campaign might be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, since these new media are trying to influence the masses in much the same way as the ruling class, because they have the means to do it. The We campaign is using the media in an attempt to reform the ruling class, undermine the rigidity and oppressiveness of the status quo, but without realizing that there is another class to which they are not speaking—the unmentioned class—the working class or the lower class—commonly referred to as the “working families” families of America. This particular campaign does not speak for these people. The We campaign speaks for the liberal segment of the bourgeoisie. They are clearly not class conscious in the Marxist sense, and they do not see that there is something missing from their campaign. They believe in what they are doing because they know that there mission is to save the planet. The bourgeoisie is not the ruling class. The bourgeoisie is the class that performs the entrepreneurial and administrative work required by the ruling class to rule. The people aligned with the We campaign have the economic and political freedom to pursue their activism—the kind or work you don’t need to get paid for. What about the masses of working families? They still don’t have a voice. “We” is a good movement, a liberal reform, but Adorno, like Gramsci, would probably say that it’s not nearly enough.
"The total effect of the culture industry is one of anti-enlightenment, in which, as Horkheimer and I have noted, enlightenment, that is the progressive technical domination of nature, becomes mass deception and is turned into a means for fettering consciousness" (Adorno, 1991)
Where is the radical media re-organization!?
*A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way
(Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I can't say this enough... brilliant. =]
Your post screams David and Goliath! Here you have "the engine that feeds the status quo-- the mass media"... and yet that engine is releasing toxic fumes into the air and poisons those of us who stand on the sidelines.
Funny that going "green" is seen as non-profitable and yet we could generally profit from changing the way in which energy companies handle environmental policies. These changes could create for a long lasting Earth. A more viable and bountiful Earth. A healthier environment for future generations. Hello! WALL-E!!! But I suppose when we talk profitable, we're talking about money and not about breathable air and drinkable water.
The almighty dollar does dictate every aspect of American culture. We could be sitting a pool of oil and breathing yellow air and nothing would be done. As long as they can still run their factories, right? Yet, what happens to the value of life? What are the rich going to do with all that money if everything is dead?
Some questions to think about:
What about the right of the public? Where do they lie in the scheme of things? (...in graves, I suppose.) Do we not indirectly have a hand in their corporations, as we buy their products and inherently power their factories with our money?
How do we save ourselves from ourselves?
M-
Wow! Very insightful and very entertaining post! I like how you start with the conservative Fox news package (a news station that is notoriously biased, and 'feeds the beast' that are the consumers of the station). The package raises the issue of global warming, then shows it's inevitable deterioration by quoting NASA. Hmmm...can we say brainwashing the public by masking the profits of major corporate polluting machines?
I also really enjoyed the "We" campaign- yes, the campaign makes attempts at promoting good--but as Michele I. mentions the Almighty Dollar, such a campaign is run off of advertising- and "we," as in "we the people," need to target something bigger, better, something that surpasses the dollar and overlooks "we" and includes everything on earth, not only human life but life in general, and raises the importance and current hegemonic ideologies that are deteriorating the quality of life in general, without us even realizing it, because what can we do to change "how the way things are?"
This could be a rephrasing or complement to Michele I.'s questioning of "How do we save ourselves from ourselves?" That is the bigger picture that Gramsci would target and encourage us as scholars to focus on-- the cohesive force that holds our society together, and what we can do change it.
Post a Comment